Delhi High Court

81,561 judgments

Year:

Sandeep Verma & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

03 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6141

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, reaffirming the cautious exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in such cases.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

Nishant Sharma & Ors. v. The State & Anr

03 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6154

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC based on an amicable settlement, applying the principles of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

Yogesh Chouhan & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

03 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6155

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement, applying the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

Sanjeev Gupta v. State

03 Aug 2015 · Sunil Gaur · 2015:DHC:6153

The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC arising from a matrimonial dispute based on an amicable settlement between the parties, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR matrimonial dispute Section 498-A IPC

Rajan Anand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

03 Aug 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:6162-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if compensation is unpaid for over five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and Ordinance amendments cannot retrospectively affect vested rights.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition compensation payment vesting of rights

Surendra Singh Pental v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Aug 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:6161-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending without possession or compensation for over five years before the 2013 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 acquisition proceedings lapse physical possession

Mahinder Sahai v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

03 Aug 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:6165-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is unpaid for over five years, and that the 2015 Ordinance cannot retrospectively take away vested rights.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act vesting of rights

Rajesh Jain and Anr v. Union of India and Ors

03 Aug 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:6164-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if possession is not taken and compensation is not paid within five years, and mere deposit of compensation in court does not prevent lapse under the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) of 2013 Act land acquisition compensation payment deposit in court

Ram Prakash Mittal and Ors v. Lt. Governer of Delhi & Ors

03 Aug 2015 · Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva · 2015:DHC:6167-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that land acquisition proceedings pending under the 1894 Act without possession or compensation for over five years are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

property petition_allowed Significant Section 24(2) RTFCTLARR Act 2013 Land Acquisition Act 1894 deemed lapse of acquisition possession and compensation

M.B. Mughal v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Anr.

03 Aug 2015 · Gita Mittal; I.S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:6173-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to pursue recovery and related matters before the Financial Commissioner, holding that the society must provide accessible records notwithstanding police seizure of some documents.

civil petition_dismissed cooperative society recovery proceedings seizure of documents Financial Commissioner

Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. v. Bagpet Industries Limited

03 Aug 2015 · Gita Mittal; I. S. Mehta · 2015:DHC:6174-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against rejection of revival and contempt petitions, holding that unconditional acceptance of settlement precludes revival and that appeals against contempt orders are maintainable only by punished persons.

corporate appeal_dismissed winding up petition settlement contempt of court Section 19 Contempt of Court Act

Harish Relan v. Kaushal Kumari Relan & Ors.

03 Aug 2015 · Gita Mittal; P. S. Teji · 2015:DHC:6172-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the suit challenging relinquishment and sale deeds was barred by limitation and that the amendment application seeking to introduce a new case was not maintainable.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant limitation amendment of plaint Order VI Rule 17 CPC relinquishment deed

Shankar Singh & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

03 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; V.K. Shali · 2015:DHC:6177-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that eligible CRPF personnel must be granted second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme after 24 years of service regardless of completion of pre-promotional courses if departmental failure prevented their attendance.

administrative petition_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme ACP Scheme second financial upgradation pre-promotional course

Dhiraj Ranjan v. Union of India & Ors.

03 Aug 2015 · S. RAVINDRA BHAT; V.K. SHALI · 2015:DHC:6168-DB

The Delhi High Court held that an ex-serviceman deputed as SI(JAM) in BSF is entitled to absorption in the same post on reemployment, rejecting BSF’s attempt to reduce his rank to ASI.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant deputation reemployment ex-servicemen BSF

Surendra Pandey v. Commissioner, MCD and Anr

03 Aug 2015 · Rajiv Sahai Endlaw · 2015:DHC:6171

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition for compensation for a child's death due to alleged municipal negligence, directing the petitioner to pursue a civil suit instead.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant negligence compensation public authority writ petition

Indian Trade Promotion Organization v. Anil Kumar Khanna

03 Aug 2015 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2015:DHC:6178-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT order dismissing recovery of alleged overpayment made to an employee based on bonafide pay fixation and after retirement.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant pay fixation advance increments overpayment recovery Central Administrative Tribunal

M/S. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. V.K. Arora and Ors.

03 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; V.K. Shali · 2015:DHC:6176-DB

The Delhi High Court held that non-statutory rules cannot override the statutory right to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and dismissed the employer's appeal seeking to withhold gratuity pending disciplinary proceedings after superannuation.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 gratuity withholding superannuation disciplinary proceedings

M/S FITWELL CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

03 Aug 2015 · THE CHIEF JUSTICE; JAYANT NATH · 2015:DHC:6166-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of an arbitration clause appointing a sole arbitrator without prescribed qualifications and dismissed the petition challenging Section 11 of the Arbitration Act as unconstitutional.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 sole arbitrator arbitrator qualifications

Chand Ram @ Ram Kishan v. Bhateri Devi & Ors.

03 Aug 2015 · Vipin Sanghi · 2015:DHC:6169

The Delhi High Court upheld the first appellate court's decree declaring a fraudulently obtained relinquishment deed void, affirming joint ownership and entitlement to injunction by the plaintiffs.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant relinquishment deed fraudulent misrepresentation power of attorney limitation period

S.K. Habibur Rahman v. UOI & Ors.

03 Aug 2015 · S. Ravindra Bhat; V.K. Shali · 2015:DHC:6170-DB

The Delhi High Court held that removal from service for a date of birth discrepancy after 30 years of meritorious service was disproportionate and directed the petitioner be treated as compulsorily retired with full benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant discrepancy in date of birth proportionality of penalty long service removal from service